Al-Jabri, in his book الناسخ والمنسوخ بين الإثبات والنفي, pages 121-126, lists several authors who have been cited by pro-abrogation scholars and says that their original writings about abrogation are nowhere to be found, or only a few pages have survived from their books that do not allow a correct deduction of what they meant by naskh. Among these names are prominent scholars often cited by the pro-abrogation folk, such as Qataada, Az-Zuhri, `Ataa' Al-Khuraasaani, Ibn Zayd, Ibn Al-Anbaari, Ibn Al-Hasaar and Al-Ajhoori.

However, he also included Abu-`Ubayd Al-Qaasim ibn Salaam in that list and we know that his book is available in its entirety.

The book Abrogation between affirmation and denial by Dr. Muhammad Mahmoud Farghali (Dar Alketab Aljame'i, 1976, two parts in one bound volume, total about 350 pages)النسخ بين الإثبات والنفى ، د. محمد محمود فرغلى ، دار الكتاب الجامعى ، ١٩٧٦ provides an interesting treatment of the subject and has an interesting format. It takes a topic within the general abrogation discussion and provides detailed quotes for and against, followed by a "verdict" by the author. There are 20 topics that get this treatment. Some are related to the abrogation doctrine, and some are about other types of abrogation and related issues. Some are highly technical, bordering on philosophical with no practical impact.

The book came out of a research thesis that the author prepared as part of an academic promotion requirement. He mentions that he was reluctant to take on this topic because of the large disagreements about it.

The most useful parts of the book are the many detailed quotes from books that are not easy to find. The verdicts that the author reached are largely what he states as the majority opinion, and his arguments for why this is the correct verdict are not crisp most of the time, IMHO. He attacks and dismisses dissenters in harsh terms without solid reasoning to back it up. In the rare case where the dissenter was unassailable (Imam Shafe'i about what can abrogate what), he adopts an astoundingly labored argument that what Shafe'i explicitly said is not what he really meant.

Intellectually, there is no comparison between this book and Zeid's far more scholarly book. I appreciated the accuracy in quoting people including those with opposing opinions, but I felt that the personal attacks on them were not warranted at all. The author went as far as hoping that the "authorities" will prevent the anti-abrogation books from being published because of their harm.

Finally, let me mention that the author's good intention came through his writing in spite of engaging in personal attacks. He seemed to be genuinely bothered by the opposing opinions that deviate from the majority, but I got the distinct impression that he did not have an iota of malice or arrogance in what he wrote. May God reward him for the knowledge that he accumulated and propagated.

It is primarily a book - an excellent book - on foundations of deduction, but it has a 20-page section on abrogation, in which the author, Hasaballah, rejects all abrogation claims. A chapter on consensus is particularly informative.

The author, Jawad `Afaana, accepts the notion of abrogation but rejects all abrogation claims He also makes a very important study of the time of revelation of Chapter 24 and uses that to conclude with confidence that 24:2 abrogated all previous rulings on adultery and fornication. This section of the book is particularly informative and clears this issue with observant scrutiny.

I can recommend this book to any student of abrogation. It offers a credible alternative to the consensus, although most of its evidence lacks certainty in sourcing, which also happens to be a problem with the pro-abrogation consensus.

The book - an excellent one - is not primarily about abrogation, but rather Quran study of the verses of Chapter 4 and how they define a moral, ethical societal structure for Muslims. As the author, Al-Madani, analyses verses which have been claimed abrogated, he rejected all such claims and explained why he does.

The author, Jawad Afana, accepts the notion of abrogation but rejects all abrogation claims He also makes a very important study of the time of revelation of Chapter 24 and uses that to conclude with confidence that 24:2 abrogated all previous rulings on adultery and fornication.

I have just finished reading the book. His sections on the Night Prayer and Private Consulting claims are pretty useful. There are useful tips in other sections, too, as well as some original points.

However, some of his arguments are a bit lacking IMHO. This is exacerbated by the fact that the author seems opinionated, so his conclusions often have a decisive tone, without the clear arguments that would justify that.

The book is not about abrogation per se, but the reader gets the impression that the author rejects abrogation by explaining that the variation between verses claimed abrogated is merely a graduation of legislation. In that, he does a great job, although he seems adamant about stating that all legislation was revealed in Medinite verses, but gives no evidence to support that. In fact, he states, without evidence, an order of revelation that is often inconsistent with the majority opinion. For instance, he says, on page 225, that Chapter 73 is number 10 in the order of revelation, while the consensus is that it's much earlier, number 3.

He also makes two strange conclusions,

That Muslims killed prisoners of war when Muslims were weak and ransomed them when they became strong. He thinks the word يثخن, mentioned in verse 8:67 means to kill prisoners of war! No! It means to continue fighting until the enemy surrenders. He says that the circumstances of revelation of these two verses,

");
}//-->

were that Abu-Bakr (RA) advised the Prophet (PBUH) to quit fighting early and take a ransom for the prisoners of war and that the Prophet (PBUH) took that advise, for which God, Al-Bahiyy claims, chastised the Prophet. No! The chastisement was for early termination of the war before the enemy surrendered.

That Muslims were ordered to fight the polytheists until they either accepted Islam or are killed! And that such order continues till today and applies to all "polytheists and materialistic people"!! Al-Bahiyy, therefore, sounds like he approves of the claims about the sword verse. No! Verse 9:5 says that the fight with militant polytheists must stop if they accept Islam. That's because fighting fellow Muslims is prohibited! Subsequent verses confirm this understanding because they mandate on Muslims to not fight polytheists who surrender, honor their treaties, seek refuge with Muslims, or are not militant. Why is that simple, commonsense understanding not clear in so many scholars minds?

The author, Dr. Wafa, starts the book with two valuable sections, pages 5-40, on the definition of abrogation and the difference between abrogation and other concepts that sound similar. This is the only part of the book that is worth reading, in my humble opinion. The remainder of the book is a rehash of the arguments repeated endlessly in most pro-abrogation books. Because of that, I find it adds little knowledge and is not therefore recommended.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum